Saturday, December 15, 2007

Ruth (of Ruth's Report): If you were attempting to follow Iraq over the week, radio basically failed you. Thursday Peter Hart, CounterSpin, FAIR and Extra! would address a few points regarding the latest Iraq spin on KPFK's Uprising Radio with host Sonali Kolhatkar. He would repeat his point in far less time on Friday's CounterSpin. Also on KPFK Thursday, Morning Review Thursday would feature Thich Nhat Hanh discussing war, Vietnam and Iraq for the hour. Thursday may have been designated Iraq day by Pacifica because Dr. David Price was a guest on Democracy Now! discussing the U.S. military utilizing misguided anthropoligists in the Iraq War and Afghanistan one. Monday on WBAI's Out-FM featured The Ballet's "I Hate The War" at the half-way mark. That song is amazing by any standard but considering the week's output from Pacifica, it is also the hardest hitting 'statement' made all week.

While we cannot get Iraq on Pacifica, we can and did get a lot of really bad discussions of the housing crisis with guests who obviously learned jargon was important to get on TV but felt no need to explain the terms they repeatedly used to the radio listeners.

On the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show Friday, Karen DeYoung, of The Washington Post, discussed Iraq and noted, of Wednesday's Amarah car bombings, that "three or four major Shi'ite groups have been contesting for power" and the U.S. has ignored that. Ms. DeYoung also noted that the American forces appeared to be hoping the Iraqi forces could become nonsectarian. She then offered what appeared to be her own belief that, prior to the start of the illegal war, Iraqi women had not been police officers. That is incorrect and killed any larger point she wanted to make about what could or could not be exported. Ms. Rehm had brought up The Los Angeles Times article this week on Iraqi female police officers being told that they would have to turn in their guns. Any comments Ms. DeYoung might have to offer on that topic need to be rooted in the reality that Iraq was not Afghanistan and that women were not wearing burkas. Saying "this putting women in uniforms" was an American goal is demonstrating a huge ignorance about the country she just returned from. Then Rosemary phoned in about the 'benchmark law,' the theft of Iraqi oil. Rosemary phrased her reading of it as "It did privatize a very big percent of Iraqi oil . . . removing it from their [Iraq's] hands" which is a correct reading. Unless your name is Karen DeYoung.

Ms. DeYoung wanted to insist that it was not about ownership. It is not ownership, she declared, before going on to say that what the proposed theft of Iraqi oil is really about is "a certain percent of profits" and that "it's not that they [companines] would own the law." Who would be selling it, Ms. DeYoung? Who would get more profits? It is a theft of Iraqi oil. Ms. DeYoung wanted to talk about exploration and drilling but failed to note that no country with Iraq's known reserves would agree to the percentages being tossed around, over 70% in some cases, and that corportations only get such generous deals when they have stumbled upon an area that may or may not have oil. An oil rich country, one that is known as oil rich, would never agree to such a deal.

In August of 2004, Ms. DeYoung told Howard Kurtz, by way of explaining the paper's poor reporting in the lead-up to the illegal war, "The hugeness of the war preparation story tended to drown out a lot of that stuff." "The hugeness" of the proposed theft of Iraqi oil should not "drown out a lot of" reality. But that appeared to be what happened.

In one of the broadcasts stronger moments, UPI's Martin Walker revealed the way the decision to renew the United Nations' mandate for one year is being seen in Iraq which is that after the mandate expires, the United States and Iraq would then have cleared the way to negotiate on their own permanent bases in Iraq.

So if you listened to NPR this week, you were aware an illegal war continued. If you listened to Pacifica? Not so much.

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

That is scheduled to take place from March 13th through March 15th and since we are now going to be noting the upcoming event each weekend day, I told C.I. I would grab it for today.

I have a few fears about the event, none of which have to do with IVAW but do have to do with press coverage of the event. Pacifica Radio would appear to be the natural leader in covering an event like this based upon its long history. However, the radio network's recent history, when they still cannot create one program devoted to covering the ongoing Iraq War, does not reassure me.

Throughout the week, I listened to live broadcasts and streams, caught archived streaming, and e-mailed members that listened to certain Pacifica outlets to ask, "Am I missing some big report, discussion or speech?" The responses I received indicated I was not missing anything and that Iraq really is not an issue to Pacifica. It has not been for some time. The big issue in 2007 has been the 2008 elections and, as awful as that has been, consider for a moment what that indicates for 2008's planned coverage. In 2006, Pacifica Radio created a national program for the mid-term elections and KPFA created its own program for the same topic. That was for mid-term elections. Shudder when you contemplate what is to come in 2008.

December 6th ended up being the only hearing the Canadian parliamentary committee on immigration was going to hold on the issue of war resisters. December 11th was just a brief committee meeting that sent the resolution agreed to on December 6th on to the House of Commons. I have no idea why many sites do not have that detail correct but, in addition to C.I.'s explaining that, I also called NDP parliamentarian Olivia Chow's office, read C.I.'s statements on the issue over the phone and was told that was correct and what happened. So in terms of covering any testimony, December 6th was the only chance this year. None was provided by Pacifica.

In addition, the 2007 crops of war resisters have been absent from Pacifica. Ehren Watada, an Iraq War resister from the 2006 class, got very little attention for his victory in civilian court. War resisters such as Brad McCall, Phil McDowell, Ross Spears, (Bethany) Skylar James, Eli Israel, Kimberly Rivera, and the Kamunen brothers (Leif, Leo and Luke) have been absent from the Pacifica airwaves and I think that is shameful.

So I am not going to be holding my breath that IVAW will suddenly interest Pacifica. Possibly if Al Gore shows up, Pacifica will yet again go out of their way to turn over programming to the event? Or maybe IVAW can book a 'voice' from the 'left' who pushes nuclear energy because they seem to pop up on all Pacifica stations and they are never questioned, let alone called out, for pushing nuclear energy. They are treated as 'trusted voices' and given the kids glove treatment. Again, that is not one station and I wonder if listeners of just one station grasp just how common this push for nuclear energy is becoming on Pacifica?

Dr. Helen Caldicott is a frequent guest on Pacifica programming. In 2007, I have only heard her on archived broadcasts such as From The Vault and she was to be featured, from an archived broadcast, on the Pacifica Radio Archives day of special programming recently. In a 2005 column entitled "Nuclear Power is the Problem, Not a Solution," Dr. Caldicott opened with this statement, "There is a huge propaganda push by the nuclear industry to justify nuclear power as a panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases." She was not mistaken. Hearing various 'trusted' 'voices' on Pacifica throughout the year present themselves as environmentalists while advocating on behalf of nuclear energy indicates that Pacifica is far from its roots on many issues.

But within days, he would lose five men, including a respected senior non-commissioned officer. Master Sgt. Jeffrey McKinney, Alpha Company's first sergeant, was known as a family man and as a good leader because he was intelligent and could explain things well. But Staff Sgt. Jeremy Rausch of Charlie Company’s 1st Platoon, a good friend of McKinney’s, said McKinney told him he felt he was letting his men down in Adhamiya."First Sergeant McKinney was kind of a perfectionist and this was bothering him very much," Rausch said. On July 11, McKinney was ordered to lead his men on a foot patrol to clear the roads of IEDs. Everyone at Apache heard the call come in from Adhamiya, where Alpha Company had picked up the same streets Charlie had left. Charlie's 1st Platoon had also remained behind, and Rausch said he would never forget the fear he heard in McKinney's driver's voice:"This is Apache seven delta," McKinney's driver said in a panicked voice over the radio. "Apache seven just shot himself. He just shot himself. Apache seven shot himself."Rausch said there was no misunderstanding what had happened.According to Charlie Company soldiers, McKinney said, "I can't take it anymore," and fired a round. Then he pointed his M4 under his chin and killed himself in front of three of his men.At Old Mod, Charlie Company was called back in for weapons training, DeNardi said. They were told it was an accident. Then they were told it was under investigation. And then they were told it was a suicide. Reynolds confirmed that McKinney took his own life.A week later, without their beloved first sergeant, Alpha Company would experience its first catastrophic loss on a mission that, but for a change in weather, was supposed to go to Charlie Company.On July 17, Charlie's 2nd Platoon was refitting at Taji when they got a call to go back to Adhamiya. They were to patrol Route Southern Comfort, which had been black -- off-limits -- for months. Charlie Company knew a 500-pound bomb lay on that route, and they’d been ordered not to travel it. "Will there be route clearance?" 2nd Platoon asked. "Yes," they were told. "Then we'll go."But the mission was canceled. The medevac crews couldn't fly because of a dust storm, and the Iraqi Army wasn't ready for the mission. Second Platoon went to bed.They woke to the news that Alpha Company had gone on the mission instead and one of their Bradleys rolled over the 500-pound IED. The Bradley flipped. The explosion and flames killed everybody inside. Alpha Company lost four soldiers: Spc. Zachary Clouser, Spc. Richard Gilmore, Spc. Daniel Gomez and Sgt. 1st Class Luis Gutierrez-Rosales."There was no chance," said Johnson, whose scouts remained at Apache and served as the quick-reaction force that day. "It was eerily the same as June 21. You roll up on that, and it looked the same."The guys from Charlie Company couldn't help but think about the similarities -- and that it could have been them."Just the fact that there was another Bradley incident mentally screwed up 2nd Platoon," Strickland said. "It was almost like it had happened to them."The battalion gave 2nd Platoon the day to recover. then they were scheduled to go back out on patrol in Adhamiya on July 18.But when Strickland returned from a mission, he learned 2nd Platoon had failed to roll."A scheduled patrol is a direct order from me," Strickland said."'They're not coming,'" Strickland said he was told. "So I called the platoon sergeant and talked to him. 'Remind your guys: These are some of the things that could happen if they refuse to go out.' I was irritated they were thumbing their noses. I was determined to get them down there." But, he said, he didn’t know the whole platoon, except for Ybay, had taken sleeping medications prescribed by mental health that day, according to Ybay.Strickland didn't know mental health leaders had talked to 2nd Platoon about "doing the right thing."He didn’t know 2nd Platoon had gathered for a meeting and determined they could no longer function professionally in Adhamiya -- that several platoon members were afraid their anger could set loose a massacre."We said, 'No.' If you make us go there, we’re going to light up everything," DeNardi said. "There's a thousand platoons. Not us. We're not going."They decided as a platoon that they were done, DeNardi and Cardenas said, as did several other members of 2nd Platoon. At mental health, guys had told the therapist, "I'm going to murder someone." And the therapist said, "There comes a time when you have to stand up," 2nd Platoon members remembered. For the sake of not going to jail, the platoon decided they had to be "unplugged."

Added: Elaine here. Gina called me about the entry that went up this morning. C.I., Ava and Kat are flying home on Saturday morning. Due to the fact that C.I. likes to note all community sites posting, the entry on Saturday morning is delayed until the last community sites have posted. Mike was posting C.I.'s entry today and pulled in a draft C.I. didn't use yesterday to add to this entry. I've pulled that out and posted it on Friday but C.I. may pull it. It was a draft which might have been a time issue or it might have been something else. Gina read the original version up here this morning and called me to ask if I'd read it. When I did, I broke up the two and that required, due to my own lack of knowledge, pulling everything else from the entry now up on Friday and copying and pasting what was supposed to be Saturday's entry into this screen. I'm sure there was an easier way but that's the only way I knew.

RadioNation with Laura Flanders airs on Air America Radio stations, XM radio and streams online at 1:00 p.m. EST:

This week on RadioNation: Wishing for a Post-Civil Rights Generation?Nothing of interest on the erased terror tapes? AZIZ HUQ of the Brennan Center takes issue with the Bush junta's line. ['GILLIGAN']* takes a look at the pundits who hail Obama as harbinger of a post civil rights generation. Waiting for Godot is a hit in New Orleans, but so is public housing. BILLY SOTHERN brings the good news and the bad. And MICHAEL RATNER winner of this year's Puffin/Nation prize, on racism, Guantanamo and what he calls America's Coup D'Etat...Waiting . . . in a Wasteland:Don't forgetRadioNation is heard on Air America Radio Sundays at 1 pm EST and on XM satellite and non-commercial stations nationwide. It can also be heard via podcast. To bring RadioNation to a station near you, write to Peter@thenation.com.Just Out: THE CONTENDERS (Seven Stories). FLANDERS, RIDGEWAY, GOLDSTEIN AND DAN SAVAGE on CLINTON, OBAMA et al.. BUY it or ORDER IT today. For more information, go to LauraFlanders.com

*"Gilligan" lost the right to be named here when, last spring, writing of Darrell Anderson for the Guardian of London, he failed to mention that Anderson was a war resister and, apparently so determined to white-wash reality, provided a hearts & flowers piece that was far from reality.

WBAI tomorrow will offer a two hour special edition of The Next Hour airing from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EST (over the airwaves in NYC, streaming online everywhere) whose topic will be Norman Mailer and the guests will include Jimmy Breslin, Joyce Carol Oates, Patricia Bosworth, Frank McCourt as well as members of Mailer's family: his widow Norris Church Mailer, sons John Buffalo Mailer and Michael Mailer, nephew Peter Alson as well as Jason Epstein who was once known as Mailer's editor and one of the founders of The New York Review of Books but these days his noteriety is eclipsed by that of his current wife Judith Miller whose published work this decade benifitted so much from the assistance of fellow Hollywood High alumni Richard Pearle.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali first came to fame in the Netherlands, after emigrating there from Somalia. She was elected to the Dutch parliament and became known for criticizing that nation's Muslim immigrant communities, especially for their treatment of women and girls. The story of a young, pretty, African woman finding success and prestige in a foreign land was tailor made for Hollywood, or for right-wingers looking for the perfect person to excuse government sponsored mass murder.The fairy tale story is just that. Ayaan Hirsi Ali exults in the lowest depths of self-hatred. She has become well paid and famous because she demonizes her fellow Muslims. As with black Americans or any other group of despised people, the self haters, the Uncle Toms, are given a clear path to fortune and favor.Ali's political party soured on their relations with her when it was revealed that she lied in order to enter the Netherlands with refugee status. It turned out that the famous politician was like millions of people from poor countries who will do anything to live in wealthy western nations.When Ali left the Netherlands to live in the United States, her true ideology came to light. She became a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the most powerful right-wing think tanks in the nation. Other AEI scholars include John Bolton, Lynne Cheney, David Frum, Newt Gingrich, Charles Murray, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and John Yoo.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Friday, December 14, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces deaths, the refugee crisis has new news, Nancy Pelosi tries a stand-up career and more.

Starting with war resistance, the War Resisters Support Campaign works to assist individual resisters in Canada and to fight for the rights of asylum of war resisters. They are calling for a national mobilization in Canada on January 26th. Courage to Resist is calling on people in the US to call the Canadian consulates in the US on January 24th and January 25th as well as to mobilize and with actions and vigils. Actions can take place around the world at Canadian consulates in every country.

In terms of e-mailing, where the pressure needs to be currently is on the these three:Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. Brave stands need to be supported.

In a larger sense, what happened to me in Iraq is completely irrelevant. The sights, the sounds, the tastes are all just curiosities that I present in an effort to paint the picture. I could give you an endless series of vignettes: what Iraq looked like, what we ate, the interesting characters in my unit, but it would all be meaningless. If you want to read about daring military exploits, there are many authors with stories more dashing than mine. It would be vain and empty merely to chronicle what happened to me, as if I were somehow so important that you needed to hear every event of my life in excruciating detail. I am not telling parlor stories.

I wrote this book because I want to share a lesson I learned in the desert, in the hope that it will inform your view of the war in Iraq, of politics, of religion, of all the choices you make as a moral person. I can't bear to hear any more stories about battles and uncompromising heroes, with flags waving gently in the background. I want this book to serve as a hanging question about what it means to be an ethical soldier, to live an honest life. I want to give you a military life in shades of gray, filled with doubt, moral courage and moral cowardice.

Delgado's book (and other books, DVDs, CDs, clothing, etc.) can be purchased via Courage to Resist (as well as at bookstores) and part of the proceeds will go towards helping the organization working to end the illegal war.

The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through Sunday December 16th at Culture Project -- this is your LAST WEEKEND to catch it -- and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $41.. The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.

Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.

Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.

In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.

March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

Starting with legal news. Delano Holmes was sentenced today. For? Killing Iraqi soldier Munther Jasem Muhammed Hassin by repeatedly stabbing him over forty times. Lance Cpl. Delano Holmes then, after Hassin was dead, fired Hassin's gun. As Rick Rogers (San Diego Union-Tribune) notes, Holmes declared on video that, "I picked up (Hassin's) AK and fired it, as to give myself a way out ... for getting into it with this Iraqi soldier." The court-martial was a joke as was the sentencing. Holmes had a high school teacher, a foster parent and others there to speak of his good character. Where were the people speaking for the dead Hassin? Had the court-martial been held in Iraq, since Hassin was an Iraqi soldier, there might have been people who grew up with him and/or trained with him who could vouch for his character. Since the defense (and to a degree the prosecution) dependent solely on the account of Holmes as to what happened (the defense attempted to argue a fight broke out over a lit cigarette and a cellphone), it might have been relevant to know whether or not Hassin was prone to engaging fights let alone (as the defense maintained) starting them. But for that to happen, the court-martial would have had to take place in Iraq. Since the crime took place in Iraq (Falluja), the court-martial should have as well. AP reports that yesterday Holmes was found guilty "of negligent homicide" but not of "unpremeditated homicide." AP also notes the prosecution's statement regarding the alleged fight Holmes stated had ensued: "Not a scratch. Not a blemish. . . . There is not a mark on him. There is no self-defense. There can be lawful killins during a time of war. This is not a lawful killing." Despite being found guilty of two charges, NBC's KNSD reports Holmes will receive no jail time -- receiving 'credit' instead for the 10 months he was held in custody leading up to the court-martial. What 'credit' does the dead Hassin receive? Or is that life less important? Other 'punishments' for Holmes include being busted down from Lance Cpl. to private and receiving "a bad-conduct discharge." So this is 'justice' -- kill an Iraqi and the time you're jailed before the trial will count as time-served and you won't receive any additional time. Hassin is dead. No one stood up at the sentencing for Hassin. No one offered stories of what he was like as a child, no religious figure stepped forward to vouch for his good soul. Considering that the court-martial took place in California and that California has been one of the leaders in the US on allowing the families of victims to speak at sentencings, that's offensive on every level imaginable. Rick Rogers (San Diego Union-Tribune) reports, "'Wow,' Maj. Christopher Shaw, a prosecutor, said under his breath when the sentence was read in a courtroom at Camp Pendleton." Wow indeed. Rob Schneider (Indianapolis Star) notes the maximum prison sentence Holmes could have received was 8 years. Instead, he received no prison time. Hassin, however, remains dead.

In other justice or 'justice' news, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reports, "The Justice Department has announced the FBI is investigating the top official overseeing corruption and abuse in the US-led reconstruction of Iraq. Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuwart Bowen is under suspicion for a series of improprieties including tampering with employee emails. Bowen's investigations have indicted several American officials on corruption charges, documented wasteful and inept work by large contractors and found the Pentagon did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons given to Iraqi troops. The Bush administration tried to close down his office last year but backed off following Congressional opposition." Robin Wright (Washington Post) notes a number of allegations against Bowen in particular and the office in general and by the time it gets down to "Cruz threatened to put hexes on employees," readers may be skeptical whether this is an investigation or the sort of thing used by Republicans before -- see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege or read articles at Consortium News such as "Rise of the 'Patriotic Journalist':" "Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, a Republican, also encountered press hostility when his investigation finally broke through the White House cover-up in 1001. Moon's Washington Times routinely lambasted Walsh and his staff over minor issues, such as the elderly Walsh flying first class on airplanes or odering room-service meals."

Parry reports most recently on the latest wave of biometrics in Iraq which will further the targeting of Iraqis by making mobile labs which, no, do not determine guilt or innocent but may lead to more 'suspects' dying. Parry notes, "In effect, the Bush administration is transforming Iraq into a test tube for modern techniques of repression, which already include use of night-vision optics on drone aircraft, heat resonance imaging, and firepower that is both deadly and precise. The new techniques represent a modernization of tactics used in other counterinsurgencies, such as in Vietnam in the 1960s and in Central America in the 1980s. . . . The U.S. news media mostly has reacted to these developments with gee-whiz enthusiasm, like the [Washington] Post story about [Anh] Duong, which breezily depicts her complicated life as a devoted mom whose personal history as a Vietnamese refugee led her to a career developing sophisticated weapons for the U.S. government. The Post feature article expressed no alarm and no criticism of Duong's comment about shooting Iraqi suspects 'on the spot'."

Turning to the issue of Iraqi refugees, John Ross joins Robert Parry in calling out the lies of Operation Happy Talk. Writing at CounterPunch, Ross notes that the latest waves roll out as primaries approach "the usual unholy alliance of Bushites, Democrats and Big media . . . doing their damndest to skam a skeptical electorate into swallowing the lie that the surge has worked, the drawdown has begun, and the war in Iraq is just about over. . . . All this happy talk gets Bush and the Republicans off the hook for an overwhelmingly unpopular war just in time for the U.S. presidential election season. It also means that the Democrats won't have to defend their half-hearted call for withdrawal and risk being tarred as traitors on the 24 House news cycle."

Will come back to the Congress in a bit, but staying on Iraqi refugees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Office issues the latest findings of their studies of Iraqi refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Most are living on savings and assistance from relatives with UNHCR's Jennifer Pagonis explaining, "33 percent say their financial resources will last for three months or less, while 24 percent are relying on remittances from family abroad to survive." Significant numbers are suffering from illnesses and lack of medication due to money issues while 10% of Iraqi children are working. Meanwhile the UN's IRIN reports that "Jordan is now demanding that Iraqis wishing to enter the kingdom first secure entry visas, the official Jordanian news agency Petra said on 11 December." The most recent edition of RCRC The Magazine of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement notes, "In the largest population movement in the Middle East since 1948, a huge influx of Iraqis is putting pressure on services in Jordan and Syria. . . . Security in Iraq has deteriorated to such an unprecedented level, due to the international armed conflict that began in 2003 and internal fighting, that many Iraqis find it nearly impossible to live in their own country. The result is that an estimated 4.2 million Iraqis have left their homes, the largest population movement in the Middle East since more than 800,000 Palestinians fled to neighbouring countries in 1948, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)."

GWEN IFILL: I want to point out to you -- I'm sure you've seen them -- page one of today's Capitol Hill newspapers, "Dems Cave," another ones says, "Democrats set to cave on Iraq, on the budget." What do you say to people who call this a cave-in Democratic Congress?REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, I guess they're trying to sell papers, but the fact is, is that I will never confine the hopes, aspirations of the American people, as reflected in the legislation of the House of Representatives, to what the president of the United States, George W. Bush, will sign.We set a high watermark. We negotiate. We compete. We debate for our position to be held. And I'm pleased that, when we come out of this process, our priorities will be largely intact. It won't be funded to the levels that we want, but I'll never start at the president's bottom line. We'll always start at a high watermark.

Her leadership started on a "high watermark"? How very, very, very sad that is considered a personal high. The Democrats refuse to 'compete' and refuse to force a vote on Iraq every day. This isn't new or novel. The May 22nd snapshot noted the following:

Meanwhile James Ridgeway (Mother Jones via Common Dreams) explores the presidential campaign of Mike Gravel who tells Ridgeway, "What we need to do [on Iraq] is to create a constitutional confrontation between the Congress and the president. Most people have forgotten the Congress is more powerful than the president. . . The Democrats have the votes in the House to pass it. In the Senate, they will filibuster it. Fine. The Majority Leader starts a cloture vote the first day. Fails to get cloture. Fine. The next day -- another vote on cloture. And the next day, and the next day, Saturdays and Sundays, no vacation -- vote every single day. The dynamic is that now you give people enough time to weigh in and put pressure on those voting against cloture. . . . I would guess in 15 to 20 days you would have cloture and the bill would pass and go to the president. He would veto it. Wonderful. It comes back to the House and Senate. Normal thing is to try to override and fail. No guts. No leadership. So in the House and Senate. Normal thing is to try to override and fail. No guts. No leadership. So in the House and Senate every day at noon, you have a vote to override the veto. The Democrats are the leaders -- they control the calendar. It only takes half an hour to have these votes."

That's not novel, that's not unknown. Congress has used that before. Gravel's been repeatedly advocating it all this year so for Pelosi to LIE to the American people is really sad. She declares that, "We know what to do to further meet the needs of the American people with this president and the obstructionism in the United States Senate. We can only do so much." FILIBUSTER. They could force a vote over and over. They don't do what's in their power to do. "We will only do so much" is a more honest answer than "we can only do so much." But Pelosi obviously hopes we've all forgotten the repeated caves or the fact that it took people like Cindy Sheehan, Tina Richards and many others to even force them to pretend to address the illegal war. "Vote for us in 2006, we'll end the war!" They were given control of both houses of Congress and . . . did nothing. But the 2008 elections are gearing up and it's time to trot out the "Vote for us . . ." cry again. We'll return to Congress in a moment but let's note some of the reported violence in the ongoing illegal war today:

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Center Soldier died of wounds suffered when the Soldier's dismounted patrol encountered an improvised explosive device south of Baghdad Dec. 13." And they announced: "A Soldier from Multi-National Division -- Baghdad was killed Dec. 13 in a small-arms fire attack in southern Baghdad. The deceased Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense."

Pelosi told Ifill yesterday, "But there's no question, ending the war was a -- is a high priority for us and a big disappointment to many people that we weren't able to do it." The two deaths brought the total number of US service members who have died while serving in Iraq to 3891. Pelosi wasn't quick to offer Ifill the number of how many service members have died since she assumed control. The 110th Congress was sworn in January 4, 2007 -- Democrats having control of both houses. That evening the total number stood at 3006. 885 deaths since Pelosi became the Speaker of the House and Harry Reid became the Senate Majority Leader. When voters gave Dems control of both houses in the November 2006 elections, they weren't saying, "Dilly-dally around and do con jobs on us while nearly 900 US service members die in an illegal war." They were saying "END THE WAR!" As Ron Jacobs (CounterPunch) notes:

Okay. I'm going to state the obvious here. After all, somebody needs to say it. In fact, everybody who sees it needs to say it. Are you ready? Then here goes. The men and women calling themselves Democrats and sitting in Congress are the biggest bunch of liars this country has ever seen. Given today's political situation, what with Bush and Cheney running the White House, that's a pretty big claim to make. Unfortunately for those who believed those men and women might actually stop the war in Iraq and begin getting the US military out of there, this is the only conclusion one can make.I mean, take a look. There are more troops in Iraq now than there were when the Democrats won (yeh, won) both houses of Congress a little over a year ago. If my calculations are correct, more than $100 billion have been spent to keep those troops there, keep them in supplies both lethal and otherwise, and to top it off, more troops have died since those elected "representatives" took their places than in any other year of this loathsome war and occupation. Add to this list of calamities the untold numbers of Iraqis killed, wounded and uprooted from their homes. No matter how you look at it, there is no way this can be called ending the war. In fact, not only could it be called enabling this debacle to continue, the more truthful description would be to call what the Democrats have done is conspire to commit murder.

That is reality and Pelosi can call it 'pretty' and paint it up all she wants but it is an ugly reality and one that should cause the Dems to hang in their heads in shame until they end the illegal war.

The Dems have done Americans and Iraqis no favor but in Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki's happy to play a favor game. Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) details how Iraqis are being prevented from making the yearly pilgrimage by the Iraqi government: " Iraqis who want to go on the pilgrimage say officials have issued approvals only for relatives and party members. The Iraqi government led by U.S.-appointed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is Shia dominated, and many Iraqis say selection for the pilgrimage is sectarian." al-Fadhily quotes Sheik Fadhil Mahmood explaining, "It is a shame that corruption now goes as far as the Hajj. This is the fifth year that many Iraqis are deprived of their right to go to Mecca, while those who are members of parties in power, and militiamen, go every year. Most of our pilgrims are going for political and commercial purposes." While the pilgrimage to Mecca can't be made, Basra Christians can't publicly celebrate Christmas; however, Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reports that if Santa can't come, the US more than likely will: "American troops may have to be sent to Basra once British force levels are halved next year" according to Major General Graham Binns.

The Department of Justice declined to prosecute a State Department employee who allegedly sexually assaulted a female Halliburton/KBR worker in Iraq, despite a recommendation from the State Department that he be charged, according to an internal document obtained by ABC News.Ali Mokhtare, who is still employed by the State Department, was investigated in2005 after a female Halliburton/KBR employee said he sexually assaulted her at the company-run camp in Basra, Iraq. Mokhtare was a diplomatic official in Basra who first came to Iraq as a Farsi translator interviewing detainees.The U.S. Diplomatic Security Service investigated the allegations against Mokhtare and presented the case to the Justice Department for prosecution, but "the case was declined for prosecution" states the document.

Barker is quoted stating, "I'm an American citizen being assaulted by a State Department employee and nobody cares and nothing's being done about it." Tonight, ABC's 20/20 will explore the topic further. And Barker's not to be confused with Jamie Leigh Jones whose story (gang-raped and held in a 'container') ABC also broke this week.

In the New York Times, they run with a front page story sourced to 'belief' which Raymond Bonner should damn well know better than to run with. The thrust is that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is behind attacks in England. It's laughable. It's laughable as a front page story, it's laughable in terms of 'sourcing,' most of all it's laughable because this would be, to steal from Jimmy Breslin, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. But this is a front page story, this garbage. Bonner is credited for the article along with wife Jane Perlez and Eric Schmitt. There are no facts, just whispers. And no one thought a moment to ask: What would be the motive?

Why England? Sunday's supposed to see a handover. Or are we not aware of that or just pretending we're not? The UK is overstretched in Afghanistan and is pulling out of Iraq.

Eight paragraphs on the front page and not one named source or even quote. You have to flip inside the paper, A 16, to get the first quoted whisper ("Two other American counter-terrorism officials . . . one of them" is the source for the first not-on-the-record quote) -- in paragraph nine of the article. The on the record quotes comes in paragraph 13 and it's 'sourced' to the Times of London (megaphone effect?). Believing that the Times of London could break the state's secret act in England without retribution? Or are we dumb Americans not supposed to be aware of that? After naming an individual of interest (tarring and feathering him) they present his attorney for a one sentence paragraph of 'no comment' (paragraph 18). Then they continue to offer 'insight' on the individual via someone "who knew him when they both lived in Cambridge" -- the individual is Shiraz Maher who now admits he was "a member of the radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir" which should raise questions:

(1) Who hooked him up with the Times of New York?(2) What deal has he cut with British authorities?(3) Who vouches for Maher?

Paragraph twenty-four (the last paragraph) presents an 'authority,' Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University. 'Authority' because Hoffman's quote has nothing to do with the story the Times pretends to break but does serve to give the appearance to the casual reader that Hoffman's vouching for their story. The article's entitled "British Inquiry in Failed Plots Points to Iraq's Qaeda Group" and it's really Raymond Bonner, Jane Perlez, Eric Schmitt and the whisperers they're protecting who do the pointing.

Bonner's been stationed in Australia and, for those who missed it, did DAMN LITTLE. Bonner gets a hands-off approach because, back in the eighties, he was under attack (and quit the paper) for reporting the truth from Latin America. But what has Bonner done since then? Considering David Hicks and a host of other Australian related stories, Bonner has done damn little this decade. His wife, Perlez, made clear where she stood on Iraq with her nonsense attempting to pass for a review. Unlike a media watchdoggie, we called Perlez' nonsense out in real time (not weeks later, we called it out the day it happened) and that's because we weren't freaking over the fact that she was married to 'hero' Bonner. Heroic acts from two decades ago don't give you a pass for bad reporting this decade.

Bonner & crew aren't offering reporting. They're offering advocacy and don't even have the guts to upfront who is doing the advocating. This is a journalistic embarrassment and it would be great if a media watchdog could call it out in real time and not weeks later the way a watchdoggie waited on Perlez's nonsense.

Because Bonner told the truth in the 80s may mean some watchdogs took him as their lawfully wedded spouse for life but we don't play that game here. If you offer crap you get called out on it and we don't wait weeks to weigh in. Nor do we avoid crediting others. Nor do we traffic in passed on e-mails. (We also don't present an online only article as appearing in print -- but we don't need to provide the Times with even more reasons to laugh at badly organized e-mail campaigns.) We also don't play silent while others who did the work get no credit. When that crap started on Plamegate with BuzzFlash not getting their share of the credit, we called it out here. Others seem to not only have a problem with crediting, they also have a problem with standards and, for the record, Jess can be reached at thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com anytime an owed apology wants to come in.

Media watchdogs who don't grasp that Bonner's done very little this decade but continued to be paid by the paper make themselves look as stupid as a spouse who is serially cheated on and wants to act surprised by the latest infidelity. The reality is the attacks on Bonner reinforced the 'game' that is played in the MSM and the fact that he continues to work with the paper as a reporter (not as a columnist where others in the past have headed and used the space to tell truths in the form of opinion) should not lead to any surprises that Bonner internalized the process. He just needed to be hit over the nose with a rolled up newspaper a few times to get with the program. For those who missed it, that it one of the long-standing critiques of MSM, that reporters take their cues from the top and that those who are made an example send a message to other reporters -- they also send a message to the ones made an example of.

Tuesday's vote, which ultimately could affect some 19,500 federal prisoners serving time for crack convictions, came a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges may deviate from the strict sentencing guidelines developed during the "war on drugs." The two decisions amount to a repudiation of federal law enforcement policies and a return of power to judges in dispensing justice to defendants in federal courts.The reprieve would be unprecedented: No other single rule in the two-decade history of the Sentencing Commission has potentially affected so many inmates.The numbers, which amount to 10% of all federal prisoners, dwarf even the grants of presidential clemency afforded draft resisters and conscientious objectors after the Vietnam War.

The above is from Richard B. Schmitt's "Ruling could free 2,500 drug inmates" (Los Angeles Times) and the first question to ask is this: Is Schmitt classifying all who were in the military during Vietnam and left in objection to that illegal war as "conscientious objectors"? While that would be great -- and apply it to today -- since so many who try for CO status are rejected, it's kind of hard to picture the Los Angeles Times getting on board with that. But even if he is attempting to include those who deserted as CO's it makes no difference because there was no attempt to include deserters in the amnesty offered by Jimmy Carter and Ford's program was clemency, a joke, included an oath, an auditioning and auditing process and a host of other factors that weren't necessary when he pardoned War Criminal Tricky Dick. Ford's clemency resulted in less than 15,000 people (draft resisters and deserters) receiving clemency and Schmitt's already tossed out "could affect some 19,500" so, if he's referring to Ford's program, he doesn't know the numbers. Carter's plan only effected draft resisters. (Draft resisters had not been inducted, deserters had left at some point after being inducted into the military.) Now as the term CO is used in big media, it refers only to those whose process ends with the military or courts (civilian or military) granting CO status. Those who apply and are rejected (even if wrongly rejected) are not recognized by big media as COs.

So unless Schmitt's attempting to advocate a broader sense of the term CO for big media, he doesn't know what he's writing about. Those who have been granted CO status need no clemency, need no pardon. Those granted CO status are not punished. They have been officially designated COs and there is no legal fallout for that status. They stand no threat of arrest so what Schmitt's talking about is anyone's guess but file it under another example of someone who's heard bad Glory Days tales and thinks he's know far more than he does and include the editor that didn't catch the glaring error. Those awarded CO status during Vietnam needed no pardon, no clemency. The CO status was recognized and that was that for them.

Turning to the topic of the current illegal war, yesterday a marine was found guilty of killing Munther Jasem Muhammed Hassain by stabbing him repeatedly over forty times. Jasem had been an Iraqi soldier until Lance Cpl. Delano Holmes murdered him. AP reports he was found guilty "of negligent homicie" but not of "unpremeditated homicide." In addition, Holmes was "also convicted of making a false statement." Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times) continues to play dual roles of enabler and rescuer whenever war crimes are involved. Perry paints a 'difficult' childhood picture. The childhood is not that different from many. By contrast, Mark Wilkerson* -- who received no coverage from the paper -- saw his mother's boyfriend murdered and his mother nearly mothered as a young child -- both by his step-father who later killed himself in jail. Holmes, Perry tells us, often went "to school hungry" -- check the stats, that's not uncommon today and the paper's yet to lead the way on advocating better and greater meals served in school -- and that there were 'threats' by his father to move out of state. Perry has no idea what the father did or did not say. While Perry's able to tell you that a minister wants to adopt the twenty-two-year-old Holmes (yes, that does sound like the creepy neighbor in Family Guy), he apparently wasn't overly concerned with telling Munther Jasem Muhammed Hassin's story. For the record, the dead person is whose story would be harder to tell and whose story the press should be attempting to tell. But Perry is the sob-sister of the War Crimes. Rick Rogers (San Diego Union-Tribune) shows a little more restraint and does manage to note this:

Prosecutors contended that Holmes became enraged during the fight and murdered Hassin with his bayonet. They also accused him of trying to stage the crime scene by moving the body and firing the soldier's AK-47 rifle, all to make it seem that he had to kill Hassin in self-defense.A major piece of evidence in the prosecution's case was a videotaped statement that Holmes gave to naval investigators Jan. 22. Holmes allegedly said, "I picked up (Hassin's) AK and fired it, as to give myself a way out ... for getting into it with this Iraqi soldier."

Prosecutors? Oh, yeah. Perry remembers those in the fourteenth paragraph of a seventeen paragraph report (and the fourteenth paragraph is one single sentence). But it's AP that does the best job on that, noting that Holmes (after setting the scene up to make it look as though Hassin fired his rifle) has claimed it was the fallout from a 'fight'. AP notes the prosecution's statement regarding the fight: "Not a scratch. Not a blemish. . . . There is not a mark on him. There is no self-defense. There can be lawful killins during a time of war. This is not a lawful killing."

The Department of Justice declined to prosecute a State Department employee who allegedly sexually assaulted a female Halliburton/KBR worker in Iraq, despite a recommendation from the State Department that he be charged, according to an internal document obtained by ABC News.Ali Mokhtare, who is still employed by the State Department, was investigated in2005 after a female Halliburton/KBR employee said he sexually assaulted her at the company-run camp in Basra, Iraq. Mokhtare was a diplomatic official in Basra who first came to Iraq as a Farsi translator interviewing detainees.The U.S. Diplomatic Security Service investigated the allegations against Mokhtare and presented the case to the Justice Department for prosecution, but "the case was declined for prosecution" states the document.

Barker is quoted stating, "I'm an American citizen being assaulted by a State Department employee and nobody cares and nothing's being done about it." Tonight, ABC's 20/20 will explore the topic further. And Barker's not to be confused with Jamie Leigh Jones whose story (gang-raped and held in a 'container') ABC also broke this week.

*To clarify, Mark Wilkerson is not accused of killing anyone. Wilkerson applies because he did have a very difficult childhood. He also applies in this entry because, in this illegal war, he attempted to get CO status and was denied. Wilkerson is a war resister.

Homemade bombs hit two Baghdad liquor stores early Thursday, and attacks in several other parts of the city killed two people and wounded at least seven others. Eleven more deaths were reported from attacks outside Baghdad, and 19 bodies were found in Baghdad and elsewhere.

On Thursday morning, many of the families of the 27 people killed in a triple car bombing Wednesday in the southern city of Amara transported the remains to a well-known burial ground in Najaf, the Shiite holy city south of Baghdad.

First, 'officials' (Alexandra Zavis reports it was the province's health department) has lowered the number of dead to 28. Unlike Zavis, the paper reports no down-grading. Nor do they get the down-graded figure correct (28 -- if you're going to accept it). But here's how the Times works (always), if they're breaking from the pack it's because they've got officials whispering in their ears. And when that happens, there's usually a behind the scenes story. Just as they managed to offer the Article 32 defense in the gang-rape and murder of Abeer and the murder of three of her family members before the defense could offer it -- a defense a 'military expert' would note (in other publications) had never been argued before. Translation, the push for the undercount came not yesterday but on Wednesday. And if the Times knew about it wasn't by happen-stance or 'good reporting.'

On the topic of Iraqi refugees, the UNHCR has finished another study and find that the bulk of the tiny amount who have returned site lack of funds as the primary reason followed by the obstacles to extending visas and granting residency in host countries.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Okay. I'm going to state the obvious here. After all, somebody needs to say it. In fact, everybody who sees it needs to say it. Are you ready? Then here goes. The men and women calling themselves Democrats and sitting in Congress are the biggest bunch of liars this country has ever seen. Given today's political situation, what with Bush and Cheney running the White House, that's a pretty big claim to make. Unfortunately for those who believed those men and women might actually stop the war in Iraq and begin getting the US military out of there, this is the only conclusion one can make.I mean, take a look. There are more troops in Iraq now than there were when the Democrats won (yeh, won) both houses of Congress a little over a year ago. If my calculations are correct, more than $100 billion have been spent to keep those troops there, keep them in supplies both lethal and otherwise, and to top it off, more troops have died since those elected "representatives" took their places than in any other year of this loathsome war and occupation. Add to this list of calamities the untold numbers of Iraqis killed, wounded and uprooted from their homes. No matter how you look at it, there is no way this can be called ending the war. In fact, not only could it be called enabling this debacle to continue, the more truthful description would be to call what the Democrats have done is conspire to commit murder.

The above is from Ron Jacobs' "Blank Check Democrats" (CounterPunch) and rightly calls out the Democratic leadership in Congress. But, if you missed it (in which case, you missed nothing), the Democrats had another 'debate' today. It was a joke. It was a joke not just because it eliminated some candidates (Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel). Are Americans informed by "thirty seconds, please" answers? Do we learn a damn thing from such a brief response? And will we learn anything from so much nonsense? One thing we did learn in a 'debate' -- put on by the Des Moines Register, PBS, AARP (laughably billed as 'interested in health care' when they are really nothing but an insurance merchents), et al. -- is that Iraq can go two Democratic 'debates' in a row without the press feeling any shame. If you missed it, the 'official' transcript. ['Official' because of 'responses' such as Hillary's 'response' to the federal budget question -- no Hillary did not say, "Number two, Hillary touched the points about medicare . . ." No, Hillary did not refer to herself in the third person or provide a cliff-notes version of her already brief -- 30 seconds, please -- response.]

In other findings, 62 percent say that their "editors back home" have lost interest in reports of day-to-day violence (no kidding) and the only significant increases have been in reports on contractors (79%) and "U.S. military strategy" (67%). The respondents rated the "Impact on Iraqi civilians" as the most under reported (40%) while the respondents rated "U.S. Military strategy" as the most over reported (29%).

Now, CounterSpin (and FAIR) should have jumped all over that but they were AWOL from Iraq as well. They are far from the only ones who should have covered it (everyone should have covered the survey -- Democracy Rising did) but they are the ones who repeatedly trot out guests telling you how the media works and how, no, the publisher or chief editor doesn't need to tell the reporters how to report a story, these things are internalized. You've heard that point over and over. With the survey you heard 62% of reporters surveyed declare their "editors back home" had lost interest. You think that's not being internalized for the ones reporting on Iraq. The violence hasn't stopped.

Now the talking point is that it has (it hasn't) and some, such as The Nation, accepted the nonsense of the 'lull' for their dumb ass editorial. Look at the IPS coverage and you don't find a 'lull'. But there has been a 'lull' in the reporting. Why? Well the survey tells you that the majority of those reporting on Iraq feel their editors are tired of reports on the day-to-day violence.

That was a huge revelation and it went without remarking upon by our small media. Possibly in five or so years, when the next book-length media study is published, CounterSpin will bring on the author and, when the point is again made that coverage is effected from the top and that reporters internalized the signals, this poll (then five-years-old) will be cited? Maybe not. But what we do know is that it didn't get cited within two weeks of release. And with all the waves of Operation Happy Talk, it sure should have. By all independent media but especially by a radio program that allegedly looks at mainstream media coverage and critiques it.

"Operation Happy Talk rolls into the shore" (November 28th) noted the effects the nonsense was having on the public. It's only going to get worse unless independent media starts challenging the spin and we're not seeing a great deal more interest in Iraq from little media than we are from big media. Peter Hart (of CounterSpin, FAIR and Extra!) made some strong points on today's KPFK's Uprising Radio but those points need to be expanded upon and made in FAIR's own outlets. [For the three who e-mailed asking why I didn't note the previous guest who apparently spoke of the targeting of officials, I didn't hear the entire show. A friend played the Peter Hart section to me over the phone and selected that because we'd noted the same topic early that morning.]

They're just there to try and make the people free,But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.Just more blood-letting and misery and tearsThat this poor country's known for the last twenty years,And the war drags on.-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3886. Tonight? 3889. Just Foreign Policy's total for the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war stood at 1,127,552. Tonight? 1,131,831.

In the snapshot today, we noted Anthony Arnove's interview (Socialist Worker) with Naomi Klein. That result in an impassioned e-mail from a visitor who explained at length how 'wrong' they were and explained at length how "this great new documentary" explores how the White House screwed up the war because they didn't plan what to do after seizing Baghdad. The e-mailer identifies as "a Nation subscribing progressive." The documentary? The one we do not applaud. The one 'directed' by a Council of/for/by Foreign Relations War Hawk who was for the illegal war before it began and who is still for it while promoting his piece of trash flick. Yes, we are talking about No End In Sight. The e-mailer is "suprised" that I've missed the documentary because "everyone's blogged about it." Take it up with "everyone" because we're aware of that flick and we don't promote it. A War Hawk made it to promote 'smarter' illegal wars and had no problem disregarding reality in order to make it.

Arnove and Klein have not shifted or tailored their positions to 'political winds.' If you're looking for reality about Iraq, you'll find it in their work and not in some awful piece of fiction trying really hard to be a documentary. In Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism, she notes:

The war in Iraq has been in damage control mode for so long that it's easy to forget the original vision for the way it was supposed to work out. But there was a vision, one neatly encapsulated at a conference held by the U.S. State Department in Baghdad in the early months of the occupation. The gathering featured fourteen high-level politicians and bureaucrats from Russia and Eastern Europe -- an assortment of finance ministers, central bank chiefs and former deputy prime ministers. They were flown to the Baghdad International Airport in September 2003, kitted out in combat helements and body armor, then raced to the Green Zone, the walled city within a city that housed the U.S.-run government of Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), and now houses the U.S. embassy.

Buy or borrow the book. But don't believe a film that sells "There was no plan! That's the problem! The White House didn't have a plan for after Baghdad was taken over!" That's not reality and pretending that it is switches the topic away from the very real war to some sort of 'fantasy football' land of how to do it 'better' next time.

Let's visit the land of fantasy and to do that, we need to go to PBS' NewHour where US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was spinning wildly today:

GWEN IFILL: I want to point out to you -- I'm sure you've seen them -- page one of today's Capitol Hill newspapers, "Dems Cave," another ones says, "Democrats set to cave on Iraq, on the budget." What do you say to people who call this a cave-in Democratic Congress?REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, I guess they're trying to sell papers, but the fact is, is that I will never confine the hopes, aspirations of the American people, as reflected in the legislation of the House of Representatives, to what the president of the United States, George W. Bush, will sign.We set a high watermark. We negotiate. We compete. We debate for our position to be held. And I'm pleased that, when we come out of this process, our priorities will be largely intact. It won't be funded to the levels that we want, but I'll never start at the president's bottom line. We'll always start at a high watermark.

No, her leadership starts at a compromised mark. They do not 'compete,' the Democrats could force a vote on Iraq every day, they could filibuster. Pelosi declares that, "We know what to do to further meet the needs of the American people with this president and the obstructionism in the United States Senate. We can only do so much." Again, they could filibuster. They could force a vote over and over. They don't do what's in their power to do. "We will only do so much" is a more honest answer than "we can only do so much." But Pelosi obviously hopes we've all forgotten the repeated caves or the fact that it took people like Cindy Sheehan, Tina Richards and others to even force them to pretend to address the illegal war.

Pelosi wants to sell what won the Democratic Party control of both houses in the November 2006 election: Put more of us in office and we'll do something. We were, for those who have forgotten, told that if they got control of only one house, they'd do something. They got control of both houses. And they did nothing.

Pelosi says, "But there's no question, ending the war was a -- is a high priority for us and a big disappointment to many people that we weren't able to do it." No, it is a HUGE disappointment that you WOULD NOT do it. You had the ability to end the illegal war and you refused to use it.The fact that you're now back begging for votes in the next election would appear to be a Freudian confession of your actual motives in 2006 and for 2008: You will try to use the illegal war to gain more Congressional seats.

Pelosi appears to think she's more trusted than she is or maybe just thinks the American people are as stupid as she thinks they are. She whines that the Republicans have prevented the end of the illegal war (a lie, the Dems don't need the Republicans to end the illegal war) and then hops on her high horse to say that Republicans "have stuck with the president with his 10-year war, war without end, trillions of dollars." She really thinks she can pull that one off and we'll all forget that the 'front runners' in the New Hampshire Democratic 'debate' refused to pledge that, if they were elected president, they would end the illegal war by the end of their first term. 2013 is when the 'front runners' were comfortable ending the illegal war. The Iraq War officially begins in March of 2003. Add ten years to that and you have 2013. We're not as stupid as Pelosi wishes we were.

Many Iraqis are angry that the government seems to be picking favourites for the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.Muslims are obliged to carry out the pilgrimage, as long as they are able-bodied and can afford to, at least once in their lifetime. Saudi Arabia, where the holy site of Mecca is located, limits the number of pilgrims to one in every 1,000 people of the total population of each Islamic country. The quota for Iraq for the last four years was agreed at 28,000 pilgrims. Iraqis who want to go on the pilgrimage say officials have issued approvals only for relatives and party members. The Iraqi government led by U.S.-appointed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is Shia dominated, and many Iraqis say selection for the pilgrimage is sectarian. "It is a shame that corruption now goes as far as the Hajj," Sheikh Fadhil Mahmood of the Sunni religious group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, told IPS in Ramadi, 110 km west of Baghdad. "This is the fifth year that many Iraqis are deprived of their right to go to Mecca, while those who are members of parties in power, and militiamen, go every year. Most of our pilgrims are going for political and commercial purposes."

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.